Sukhbir Singh vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 1401 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+             CRL.MB. No.382/2011 in CRL.A. No. 295/2011


                                                      Decided on 10.03.2011

IN THE MATTER OF :

SUKHBIR SINGH                                                 ..... Appellant

                          Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate with
                          Mr.Abhay Kumar, Mr.Rakesh Mittal and
                          Mr.Ashutosh Pandey, Advocates

                    versus

STATE                                                         ..... Respondent

                          Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.



CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may                 No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                        No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter alia

for grant of suspension of sentence, in respect of impugned judgment of

conviction dated 27.1.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.1.2011. Under

the judgment of conviction, the Special Judge, Delhi has held the appellant

guilty and convicted him for committing offences under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988(for short `the Act'). Under the order on sentence, the appellant has

been awarded sentence to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of

`3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two

months under Section 7 of the Act. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for

a period of two years and a fine of `3,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo SI for a period of two months under Section 13(2) of the Act.

Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. However, the

appellant was given the benefit available under Section 428 Cr.PC.

2. In the instant case, the appellant is a Head Constable working in

PS Geeta Colony. The case of the prosecution was that on 8.9.2006, the

appellant called the complainant, Vinod Kumar(PW-8) in the police station and

informed him that a lady, Lata Chauhan had lodged a complaint against him.

The appellant demanded a bribe of `10,000/- from the complainant for not

registering an FIR against him. The amount was settled at `5,000/- and the

complainant gave `1,000/- to the appellant with a promise to pay `4,000/- on

9.9.2006. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption

Branch, Delhi with the allegation that the appellant had demanded a bribe for

closing the complaint of Ms.Lata Chauhan. As per the prosecution, a raiding

party was constituted with an ACP leading the team and the appellant was

caught red handed accepting the bribe. Charges were framed against the

appellant to which he pleaded that he was not guilty and claimed trial. The

trial has culminated in his conviction as noted above.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant seeks

suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal on the ground that

the raid was concocted and stage-managed and that the pre-raid procedures

remained unproved. He further submits that the complainant(PW-8) had

turned hostile in the trial and the Panch witness, Mr.Umesh Sehgal(PW-2) had

also not corroborated the case of the prosecution. Learned Senior counsel

further submits that if the testimony of PW-2 is read comprehensively, it

would indicate that the recovery of the treated GC notes from the right hand

fist of the appellant was not made in the presence of the Panch witness. He

also submits that the trial court failed to take into consideration the

submission of the appellant that he had been falsely implicated by the

complainant in the present case and that later on, even the complainant had

not supported the prosecution version of the case. It is further argued that if

the call detail record of the mobile phone of the Panch witness, PW-2 is

carefully examined, it would reveal that he was not present on the day, time

and place where the trap was laid, as claimed by the prosecution. Lastly, it is

urged that since the sentence imposed on the appellant was for less than

three years, he had a right to be released on bail, more so, when the trial

court has released him on interim bail, which order is valid till 13.3.2011.

4. The impugned judgment reflects that apart from the panch

witness(PW-2) and the complainant(PW-8), the learned ASJ considered the

deposition of ACP Jai Prakash(PW-10), the Raid Officer, which corroborated

the case of the prosecution that the appellant, being a public servant, had

obtained a bribe of `4,000/- from the complainant, Vinod Kumar(PW-8), as a

pecuniary advantage to himself. The trial court noticed that the report of the

FSL further corroborated the fact that the appellant had handled the treated

GC notes in his right hand, which had turned pink as soon as the appellant

had washed his hand. Thus based on the evidence on record and the

testimony of prosecution witnesses, the trial court has held the appellant

guilty of accepting illegal gratification. Upon perusal of the impugned

judgment of conviction and order on sentence, this Court is therefore prima

facie of the opinion that the same does not suffer from any patent illegality,

gross arbitrariness or palpable miscarriage of justice.

5. Cases relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be

treated as ordinary cases, where sentence ought to be suspended just for the

asking. In such cases, the complainant alone is not a victim, but the sufferer

is the society at large, whose interests ought to be placed on a higher

pedestal and the offender treated on a stricter footing. In the case of State of

M.P. and Ors. vs. Ram Singh reported as 2000 SCC (Crl.) 886, the Supreme

Court observed as below:-

"8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to malignancies (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio- political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable diseased is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence - shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."

6. In the current scenario prevailing in the country, it is quite evident

that the evil of corruption is eating into the vitals of the social fabric and

corroding the character of the nation, while eroding the confidence reposed by

the society in public servants. Hence, the Courts must show extra caution

while suspending sentence in a case of corruption. Further, even though the

appellate court has ample powers and discretion to suspend the sentence, the

said discretion has to be tempered with caution and exercised judicially

depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the

appellant has preferred the present appeal, it cannot be urged that he is

entitled to claim suspension of sentence as a matter of right, more so when

an actual date of hearing has been fixed in the main appeal.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is

not inclined to grant suspension of sentence to the appellant. As a result, the

present application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant

is directed to surrender before the trial court by 13.03.2011.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH       10, 2011                                           JUDGE
mk